Legal Research
Cases
R v Noble; Ex parte

R v Noble; Ex parte

Case [2017] QCA 86 12 May 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Noble; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 86

PARTIES:

R
v
NOBLE, Thomas Adrian
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 267 of 2016
DC No 164 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Sentence: 6 September 2016

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2017

JUDGES:

Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY CROWN – EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – GENERALLY – where the respondent pleaded guilty to 15 counts of serious animal cruelty arising from greyhound live baiting on the respondent’s property – where the respondent was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of five years – where the sentencing judge took into account many relevant factors, including the respondent’s early and continued guilty plea, his mental and physical health, his role as primary carer of his wife, his loss of livelihood, lifestyle and social structure and the vilification within, and ostracism from, the greyhound racing industry that he has experienced – where the sentencing judge also took into account the need for public denunciation and general deterrence – where the appellant contends the matters in mitigation did not justify a wholly suspended sentence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate

Criminal Code (Qld), s 242, s 669A

R v Chapman, unreported, Bradley DCJ, DC 471 of 2015, 24 June 2016, cited
R v F, unreported, Bradley DCJ, DC 108 of 2016, 1 April 2016, cited
R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2014) 247 A Crim R 582; [2014] QCA 345, cited
R v Guthrie (2002) 135 A Crim R 292; [2002] QCA 509, cited
R v Roberts, unreported, Koppenol DCJ, DC 395 of 2015, 13 November 2015, cited
R v Talia [2009] VSCA 260, distinguished
R v Yarwood (2011) 220 A Crim R 497; [2011] QCA 367, cited

COUNSEL:

M R Byrne QC for the appellant
A J Edwards for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Hannay Lawyers for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: On 30 August 2016 in the District Court at Ipswich, the respondent, Thomas Adrian Noble, pleaded guilty to 15 counts of offences against s 242(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) (“the Code”). Counts 1, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 alleged that the respondent with intent to inflict severe pain or suffering, unlawfully caused prolonged suffering to an animal on 20 and 22 August, and 6, 8, 10 and 12 October 2014 respectively at Churchable. Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 alleged that he with intent to inflict severe pain or suffering, killed an animal on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Noble; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Noble; Ex parte [2017] QCA 86
Case: [2017] QCA 86
Decision Date: 12 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Noble; Ex parte involved the respondent who pleaded guilty to 15 counts of serious animal cruelty related to greyhound live baiting on his property. The respondent was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of five years. The appellant, acting on behalf of the Crown, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that the wholly suspended sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was appropriate and justified under the circumstances. The court had to consider the various factors taken into account by the sentencing judge, including the respondent's early and continued guilty plea, his mental and physical health, his role as the primary carer for his wife, the loss of his livelihood, lifestyle, and social structure, as well as the vilification and ostracism he had experienced within the greyhound racing industry. The court also had to evaluate the need for public denunciation and general deterrence in the context of this case.

The court determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately weighed all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, considering the comprehensive assessment made by the sentencing judge. The court emphasised the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, which includes taking into account both the nature of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence reflected a fair and proportionate response to the respondent's conduct and the relevant mitigating factors.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge. The court's decision underscored the importance of a comprehensive and balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Noble; Ex parte [2017] QCA 86

Most Recent Citation

State of Queensland v Noble [2018] QSC 59

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

State of Queensland v Noble
[2018] QSC 59 Para 10

…aph 2 of sentencing remarks dated6 September 2016 which are exhibit YT-04 to the affidavit of Yer Thao affirmed 13 September 2016. [14] [2017] QCA 86. [15] See paragraph [55]. The use made of the property…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General
[2014] QCA 345 Para 1

…n R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) ,[69] the appellant’s case was no more difficult because of the absence of comparable sentences. [69][2014] QCA 345; [2014] 247 A Crim R 582, decided after Barbaro .…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2 Para 1

…tences” by the High Court in Barbaro v The Queen ; Zirilli v The Queen .[68] [67][2011] QCA 120 at [70] (Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreeing). [68][2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58 per French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [24]-[28].…
R v Ganley; R v Ganley
[2013] QCA 380 Para 1

…rigo; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] QCA 399 per de Jersey CJ at pp 6-7 (McMurdo P and McPherson JA agreeing); R v Ganley; R v Ganley [2013] QCA 380 per Fraser JA at [20] (Muir JA and Margaret Wilson J agreeing). [48]Exhibit 15, AB172-173. [49]Appellant’s Outline of Submissions, paras 10.9-10.11.…
R v Galeano
[2013] QCA 51 Para 1

…, consistently with authority, could properly be taken into account on sentence as extra-curial punishment.[63] [63]Reference was made to R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51; [2013] 2 Qd R 464 per McMeekin J at [95], [96] and [109]-[112].…
R v Yarwood
[2011] QCA 367 Para 1

…, it was open to his Honour to take into account the illnesses and the implications for them of actual detention, as relevant to sentencing. [71][2011] QCA 367 at [50].…
R v Nuttall; Ex parte Attorney-General
[2011] QCA 120 Para 1

…ubsequent deprecation of the notion of an “available range of sentences” by the High Court in Barbaro v The Queen ; Zirilli v The Queen .[68] [67][2011] QCA 120 at [70] (Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreeing). [68][2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58 per French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [24]-[28].…
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld)
[2011] HCA 10 Para 1

…n some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion reposed in the court of first instance. [40] Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10; (2011) 242 CLR 573. [41][1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ at 505.…
R v Talia
[2009] VSCA 260 Para 1

…Reliance was placed on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Victoria in R v Talia .[51] [50]Appeal Transcript (“AT”) 1-7 l44 – 1-9 l21. [51][2009] VSCA 260.…
R v Romano
[2008] QCA 140 Para 1

…pressed the following observations and conclusions:[36] [35] R v Barton-Cootes , unreported, Rafter DCJ, DC 1312 of 2015, 29 January 2016; R v Romano [2008] QCA 140; and Towers-Hammond v Burnett [2007] QDC 282. [36]AB48 ll19-42.…
Towers-Hammond v Burnett
[2007] QDC 282 Para 1

…sions:[36] [35] R v Barton-Cootes , unreported, Rafter DCJ, DC 1312 of 2015, 29 January 2016; R v Romano [2008] QCA 140; and Towers-Hammond v Burnett [2007] QDC 282. [36]AB48 ll19-42.…
R v D'Arrigo; ex parte
[2004] QCA 399 Para 1

…for her care in that event although it would be burdensome for them.[49] [47]See, for example, R v D’Arrigo; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] QCA 399 per de Jersey CJ at pp 6-7 (McMurdo P and McPherson JA agreeing); R v Ganley; R v Ganley [2013] QCA 380 per Fraser JA at [20] (Muir JA and Margaret Wilson J…
R v Bagust
[2003] QCA 385 Para 1

…ence of imprisonment for the purposes of that provision. [55]Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, para 9.1. [56]Ibid para 9.21; AT 1-13 ll9-11. [57][2003] QCA 385 per McMurdo P at p 5 (Dutney and Philippides JJ agreeing).…
R v Guthrie
[2002] QCA 509 Para 1

…m the same medical conditions for which he sought sympathetic treatment on sentence. That diminished the weight to be given to that factor.[46] [45][2002] QCA 509; (2002) 135 A Crim R 292 per Mullins J at [45] (de Jersey CJ and Williams JA agreeing). [46]Appellant’s Outline of Submissions, para 10.8.…
R v Jackson; Ex Parte
[2001] QCA 445 Para 1

…while they were asleep.[61] It was submitted that the threats amounted to a marked level of extra-curial punishment.[62] [58]AT 1-10 ll36-38. [59][2001] QCA 445 per Davies J at p 8 (McMurdo P and Ambrose J agreeing). [60]Exhibit 15; AB172-173 and Respondent’s letter to the learned sentencing judge: Exhibit 17, AB…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…perly to exercise the discretion reposed in the court of first instance. [40] Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10; (2011) 242 CLR 573. [41][1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ at 505.…
Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland
[2011] HCA 107 Para 1

…e has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion reposed in the court of first instance. [40] Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10; (2011) 242 CLR 573. [41][1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ at 505.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Law Amendment Act 2014 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Noble; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 86
PARTIES:	R v NOBLE, Thomas Adrian (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 267 of 2016 DC No 164 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Sentence: 6 September 2016
DELIVERED ON:	12 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 March 2017
JUDGES:	Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY CROWN – EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – GENERALLY – where the respondent pleaded guilty to 15 counts of serious animal cruelty arising from greyhound live baiting on the respondent’s property – where the respondent was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of five years – where the sentencing judge took into account many relevant factors, including the respondent’s early and continued guilty plea, his mental and physical health, his role as primary carer of his wife, his loss of livelihood, lifestyle and social structure and the vilification within, and ostracism from, the greyhound racing industry that he has experienced – where the sentencing judge also took into account the need for public denunciation and general deterrence – where the appellant contends the matters in mitigation did not justify a wholly suspended sentence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate Criminal Code (Qld), s 242, s 669A R v Chapman, unreported, Bradley DCJ, DC 471 of 2015, 24 June 2016, cited R v F, unreported, Bradley DCJ, DC 108 of 2016, 1 April 2016, cited R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2014) 247 A Crim R 582; [2014] QCA 345, cited R v Guthrie (2002) 135 A Crim R 292; [2002] QCA 509, cited R v Roberts, unreported, Koppenol DCJ, DC 395 of 2015, 13 November 2015, cited R v Talia [2009] VSCA 260, distinguished R v Yarwood (2011) 220 A Crim R 497; [2011] QCA 367, cited
COUNSEL:	M R Byrne QC for the appellant A J Edwards for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Hannay Lawyers for the respondent